<<whispers>> Was there ever any clarification about whether the issue with GF was swearing on here?

If i were GF i would be far more worried about the media fall out of this thing going to court than what a few mums said on a internet forum. I really wonder if she is getting the right legal advice.

what i don't understand is on what grounds can you issue court proceedings towards someone? I mean, if somebody said something bad about me or my business online, and if i had enough money, I could hire lawyers and force someone into settling without it going to court, just because i wanted to? Even if I was likely to lose in court? I can't understand how people can be forced to pay up just to avoid losing the roof over their heads, because someone else feels like it. I mean, so many high profile people have things said about them on the internet [I am not saying this is OK I am just saying it is pretty much everywhere.] It seems like a terrible loophole in the law.

Cheers Anchovy, I think you've answered what I needed to know (for my business plan- its a competition so not real life enough for me to go and pay any lawyers yet!)

Jimjams - an LLP is a limited liability partnership. In general, a partnership (in the legal sense) does not have limited liability so each partner is liable for all of the debts of the partnership. (Very) broadly speaking an LLP is a form of partnership whereby the partners can enjoy the same sort of limited liability that shareholders in a company. Not likely to be relevant here, though as not usually used for trading businesses.

The point that Justine et al don't need to be concerned about losing their houses is right - I would expect Mumsnet to be a limited company and as such it is very difficult to look behind that to the individual shareholders. And I would put good money on them having a reasonable level of insurance cover for things like this. And they have disclaimers, have pulled the threads and have given appropriate "warnings" in the past.

I still would be hugely surprised if this got to court. Hugely.

That makes very interesting reading zippi.

Worrying that so many of the defendants ended up settling out of court simply because they couldn't afford to defend themselves, despite the likelihood of court victory being high.

Anchovy: I should state at this point I am not a lawyer! I just followed Godfrey vs. Demon Internet fairly closely at the time, and have had the benefits of being a limited company drummed into me by dh both times he's been a director of a company!!

\link{http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquatic_plants/index.html\ a fishy fable}

fish and aquariums??? PMSL how bizarre.

a limited company often has to have personal guarantees from its directors when it borrows money, leases premises etc so sometimes the protection is not as great as you might think

jimjams i think there was US case about fish and aquariums

oh he;'s not banging on about it in relation to GF, I doubt he knows who she is, he's just been going on about them for years, but I never get to the end of the conversation without my mind wandering.

What are the liability issues for a LLP? - I'm taking the chance to ask legal types here because dh is aways banging on about it and I tend to go to sleep (also I need to write a business plan and I need to know the difference).

I'm obsessed too

I've only got this and the laundry to think about

does a disclaimer help in this case?....don't wnat to be all negative but in some cases, those things where it says XYZ take no responsibility for any harm coming to you as you walk through our car park are fairly worthless if XYZ have failed to maintain said car park to safe standard...IYSWIM.
Having said that, I really think GF should 'rise above' all this and move on with her very successful career.

GeorginaA - phew, someone who understands libel law

oh I thought mumsnet wasn't a limited company. Was it in the US that a poster was sued for defamation on an internest site.

Either that or it would be one hell of a whiparound :)

Yes Piffle, but they can throw up their hands at any point and say "sorry, Mumsnet Limited has run out of money and is folding" - it's still stressful, but the roof over their head is not under threat. I was trying to be reassuring :)

I emailed PE about it when it first kicked off

Yes but even if you're in the right, yuo still have to hire legal bods to prove you're ok, and that costs so much money. There would be no guarantees you would get awarded costs either

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

OH come one now, surely someone must have a contact in Private Eye.

Hmm.... if you read the disclaimer: "To the extent permissible by law, Mumsnet Limited assumes no responsibility for information published on this site and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. Mumsnet Limited is not liable for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a result of any actual or alleged libellous statements, infringements of intellectual property or privacy rights, or product liability, whether resulting from negligence or otherwise, including without limitation, from any use or operation of any ideas, instructions, procedures, products or methods contained in the material published on the site."

The important bit isn't actually the thing about them not being liable - it's the bit where it's referred to as "Mumsnet Limited" - if they're sued, the company gets sued, not the individuals running it. My understanding of that is that Mumsnet would just fold and be no more, with the directors only being liable for their stake in the company (which for an internet site I'm guessing would be fairly small). Justine et al. won't lose the roof over their heads.

In terms of legal precedent in this country (thinking Godfrey vs. Demon Internet), it's not the individual posters who get sued for libel, it's what's considered to be the publisher (in this case Mumsnet). However, given their disclaimer in their T&C (I'm not sure if there was a disclaimer involved in Godfrey vs. DI - I assume the rash of disclaimers came about BECAUSE of that test case), I'm not sure how sympathetic the court would be anyway - especially as Mumsnet have gone out of the way to remove the offending postings (which Demon Internet didn't do, hence the court case).

But the GF website on 11 May said:

"Gina was forced to seek legal advice regarding other very serious issues with Mumsnet, and we will in the near future make a public statement as to her reasons for this."

Has this been made yet?

Thanks Jim Jams! Didn't take that bit in when I read it earlier...just the 'libellous' bit! It's all a farce really. I still don't think she has a case, because of posting on here calling herself names. Surely that could be seen as inciting others to do the same?